Once again the Coalition demonstrate that they know the price of everything but the costs of nothing

Surely you take this article with a pinch of salt? It relies on a paper from the Wentworth Group, whose membership includes Tim "Sydney and Melbourne will run out of water by 2007" Flannery, and David "I withdraw my claims for unprecedented warming of Australasia" Karoly.
You mention costs - the $10 billion spent on unused desal plants is a national disgrace.

BEIJING — China and the United States made common cause on Wednesday against the threat of climate change, staking out an ambitious joint plan to curb carbon emissions as a way to spur nations around the world to make their own cuts in greenhouse gases.
The landmark agreement, jointly announced here by President Obama and President Xi Jinping, includes new targets for carbon emissions reductions by the United States and a first-ever commitment by China to stop its emissions from growing by 2030.

-----------

A huge development that could make it possible to reach binding agreements on emissions and climate change next year in Paris.

A huge development that could make it possible to reach binding agreements on emissions and climate change next year in Paris.

Is this a Claytons agreement? China will stop growing its emissions in 15 years - and presumably only if the USA has achieved its targets.
Its more like Obama had to put something on his scorecard after the disastrous mid-term elections last week.

Who me, wrong? Perhaps Flannery's 2007 prediction of "almost every one of our cities is on the verge of running out of water" beats any errors of mine. Equally dud predictions have come from Robyn Williams, who said the seas will rise 100 meters this century.
The catastrophic nature of these, and similarly incorrect disaster scenarios such as the melting of the Himalayas, should give us all great cause to rethink our headlong rush to blame carbon dioxide for all climate change.
I fear President Obama will take the opposite path though.

Emissions have been climbing but warming has stopped/paused/in a hiatus. And no, the heat isn't trapped in the oceans.

I know two blokes who worked the Bingara Blue Asbestos mine for many years. They have silicosis and emphysema from dust exposure but neither have developed Mesothelioma, therefore it is incorrect to say that asbestos causes Mesothelioma and millions have been paid out in compensation on a scientific sham perpetrated by those with vested interests against the highly ethical and strictly honest companies that produced asbestos products like CSR and James Hardie. Don't get me started on those poor tobacco companies that have been unfairly vilified because so many smokers never get cancer despite puffing away for years.

AND tell me if you heat a mass of air to temperature X and then place it in situation of a negative temperature gradient will it cool more quickly than a liquid heated to temperature X in a similar gradient? Also consider if you heat a gas in a semi-closed system and a liquid is present in the system will there be heat transference from the gas to the liquid? Of course there will be until such time as the temperature gradient is equalised. Now as we have determined in the experiment/examination outlined that a liquid in a temperature gradient cools more slowly than the gas it acts as a heat sink and will cause the gas to cool more slowly than it would have alone. Therefore it is incorrect to say that heat is "trapped" in the oceans, it has been an unfortunate misrepresentation of the proven effects outlined here.

. Therefore it is incorrect to say that heat is "trapped" in the oceans, it has been an unfortunate misrepresentation of the proven effects outlined here.

Perhaps "trapped" is wrong - here are two eminent sources with alternative statements:"extra heat being absorbed into the deep ocean" "NOAA posts regularly updated measurements of the amount of heat stored in the bulk of the oceans."

Perhaps "trapped" is wrong - here are two eminent sources with alternative statements:"extra heat being absorbed into the deep ocean" "NOAA posts regularly updated measurements of the amount of heat stored in the bulk of the oceans."

It doesn't change the basic aspects of thermodynamics. The volume of water in question will not change by what we would think of as significant temperatures when we consider it in terms of degrees Celsius or even in Kelvin. We need to consider the temperature in terms of the energy component. The easiest way is to consider the Joules required to raise 1ml of water by 1 degree Celsius, referred to as its specific temperature. That is according to SI Units is 4.186J/Ml at 1 atmosphere pressure. So consider the energy input required to raise the deep ocean temperature my a reliably measurable amount. Just because we cannot measure it with instruments we can calculate by the laws of thermal dynamics the energy amount being absorbed because we know the starting values of air temperature and the other variables such as pressure, water density, salinity etc. It becomes a very complex mathematical exercise, but it is just that a question of mathematics, not one of theory.

The complicating factor for those who really want to get into the maths is the fact that the specific temperature can vary depending on the pressure, density, and salinity. Further the energy state will influence the density and salinity. Those things then influence the currents which mix the layers and further complicate the calculation. All these things also in turn influence the absorptive rate which the oceans take up CO2 and other gases, which influences pH and in turn salinity and density.... and so on and so on. It is no wonder the great mathematical minds prefer to hunt Dark Matter.

When you consider just this aspect of of climate change it should surprise anybody that the system will throw up unpredicted data, and people should not be expecting temperatures or change to move in a lineal fashion but in fit and starts that may be big moves or small. I have no doubt as well that there are significant variables that have not been accounted for, discovered or perhaps even thought relevant.

When considered in this light the "pause" if not significant, it might not even be a pause as such, just a change in energy absorption point. I don't know, and personally don't care, I have always approached this debate from the point of view that efficiency and less pollution is a good thing in and of itself, and if Australia took an early adoption of this position we would be better prepared for climate change AND economically come out in front at the same time.

I have always approached this debate from the point of view that efficiency and less pollution is a good thing in and of itself, and if Australia took an early adoption of this position we would be better prepared for climate change AND economically come out in front at the same time.

Thanks for that detail. You have highlighted for me the enormous depth of knowledge required to make rational decisions about climate change. Something i don't posses.
Your post got me to thinking about the costs of reducing CO2 emissions versus the costs of simply reacting to climate changes. A quick Google search saw these figures pop up:

Thanks for that detail. You have highlighted for me the enormous depth of knowledge required to make rational decisions about climate change. Something i don't posses.
Your post got me to thinking about the costs of reducing CO2 emissions versus the costs of simply reacting to climate changes. A quick Google search saw these figures pop up:

The cost between 2010 and 2050 of adapting to approximately 2oC warmer world by 2050 is in the range of $70 billion to $100 billion a year (World Bank)

Despite my acknowledged lack of technical understanding of Global Warming, I know most taxpayers would opt for adaptation over prevention.

There is the crux of the debate. They don't know what adaptation will require. That is where the dollar costs do not really paint the picture. What will happen if some of the modelling proves true and currently marginal farm land becomes unproductive due to rainfall changes? The world's population is continually racked by famine as it is (though at most times that is a matter of economics in itself). When the adaptation is forced on westerners to eat less, drink less and have a reduced standard of living I think you'll see the costs rise very quickly. Also as with all such economic arguments the bottom of the tree will inordinately feel the pain and millions in third world countries will die.

Again for me it comes back to the fact that I really don't care for the dollars argument as it has been put by those on the anti-emissions trading side (I hate the term deniers as it lumps conservatives with insufficient knowledge in with those who are dominating and instilling fear), I support efficiency and a less polluting economy as worthy aims in and of themselves for Australia. Acting against Climate Change is a bonus.

As for $2 trillion a year, world wide across developed and un-developed economies, it isn't really that much.

The big difference being that the world's two biggest economies are now moving forward in this area.

Do you honestly think that the world isn't going to move towards reducing fossil fuel use and reducing emissions overall?

Do you think there'll be a watershed moment where the rest of the world decides that the conservative think tanks funded by oil and fossil fuel interests were right and that it will become a free for all on fossil fuel burning and emissions or do you think that over time, the numbers of skeptics and deniers will continue to drop as they've done for the last 25 years?